Allahabad High Court
Munna Lal Sahu vs Laxman Prasad Agarwal on 9 March, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:47029 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2830 of 2026 Munna Lal Sahu .....Petitioner(s) Versus Laxman Prasad Agarwal .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar, Damodar Singh, Devendra Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Subhash Chandra Maurya Court No. - 35 HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Saurabh Kumar Rai, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Devendra Vikram Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Present petition has been filed, seeking to assail an order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lalitpur in P.A. Case No.11/2014 (Laxman Prasad Agarwal vs. Munna Lal Sahu) and also the subsequent order dated 5.12.2025 passed by the Additional District/Special Judge (DAA), Lalitpur in UPUB Appeal No.17 of 2021, affirming the earlier order.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, after making submissions to some extent, has not been able to dispute that the orders impugned are based on appreciation of facts and the material available on record and, that there is no patent error or illegality in the orders, which may persuade this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel, however, seeks an indulgence, praying for an additional time of six months to vacate the premises in question.
Counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that he has no objection to the prayer so made by the petitioners.
It is pointed out that the condition imposed by the appellate authority in its order dated 5.12.2025, after modifying the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, directing the respondent-landlord to pay one year’s rent as compensation to the tenant-petitioners, has been duly complied by the respondent-landlord.
Having regard to the aforesaid and in view of the request so made by counsel for the petitioners, while dismissing the petition, this Court grants six months’ time to the petitioners to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the premises in question, to respondent landlord, on or before 9th September, 2026, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The tenant petitioner shall file an undertaking before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lalitpur, to the effect that he shall handover peaceful possession of the premises in question, to the respondent landlord on or before 9th September, 2026;
(ii) The said undertaking shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today; and
(iii) The tenant-petitioner shall also regularly deposit a monthly amount of Rs. 1000/- towards ‘use and occupation charges’, by the 7th day of each month, during the period of extended occupation.
It is made clear that in the event of default in compliance of any of the aforesaid conditions, the protection granted by this Court, shall stand vacated automatically and it shall be open to the respondent landlord to seek enforcement of the order passed in the P.A. case, in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
March 9, 2026
Arun K. Singh